The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the development is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving the construction of 2 residential units, including, but not limited to, authorizing a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to 2 units or physically precluding either of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map expires 24 months after its approval or conditional approval or after any additional period of time as prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months, except as provided. This bill, among other things, would require a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the urban lot split would not require the demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income, that the parcel is located within a single-family residential zone, and that the parcel is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, authorizing a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units, as defined, on either of the resulting parcels or physically precluding either of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The bill would require an applicant to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split, unless the applicant is a community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation, as specified. The bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing any additional owner occupancy standards on applicants. By requiring applicants to sign affidavits, thereby expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also extend the limit on the additional period that may be provided by ordinance, as described above, from 12 months to 24 months and would make other conforming or nonsubstantive changes. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill, by establishing the ministerial review processes described above, would thereby exempt the approval of projects subject to those processes from CEQA. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined, that shall be based on various coastal resources planning and management policies set forth in the act. This bill would exempt a local agency from being required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for housing developments and urban lot splits pursuant to the above provisions. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
Sponsored bills
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This bill would, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting an ordinance pursuant to these provisions on or after January 1, 2029. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction's General Plan, ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that ordinance, is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from superceding a local restriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land or for park or recreational purposes. The bill would impose specified requirements on a zoning ordinance adopted under these provisions, including a requirement that the zoning ordinance clearly demarcate the areas that are subject to the ordinance and that the legislative body make a finding that the ordinance is consistent with the city or county's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The bill would require an ordinance to be adopted by a 23 vote of the members of the legislative body if the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by local initiative. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance and would prohibit a legislative body from subsequently reducing the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance. The bill would prohibit a residential or mixed-use residential project consisting of 10 or more units that is located on a parcel zoned pursuant to these provisions from being approved ministerially or by right or from being exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, except as specified. This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
This measure would request the Congress of the United States to enact the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act and would request that President Joe Biden sign that legislation.
This measure would proclaim the month of July 2021 as California Parks and Recreation Professionals Month to celebrate the accomplishments and resilience of parks and recreation professionals throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
This measure would proclaim specified principles as the Cancer Patients' Bill of Rights to make clear the Legislature supports the best cancer care for cancer patients in the state.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including federally qualified health center (FQHC) services and rural health clinic (RHC) services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law provides that FQHC and RHC services are to be reimbursed, to the extent that federal financial participation is obtained, to providers on a per-visit basis. "Visit" is defined as a face-to-face encounter between a patient of an FQHC or RHC and specified health care professionals, including a physician and marriage and family therapist. Under existing law, "physician," for these purposes, includes, but is not limited to, a physician and surgeon, an osteopath, and a podiatrist. This bill would authorize reimbursement for a maximum of 2 visits taking place on the same day at a single location if after the first visit the patient suffers illness or injury requiring additional diagnosis or treatment, or if the patient has a medical visit and a mental health visit or a dental visit, as defined. The bill would authorize an FQHC or RHC that currently includes the cost of a medical visit and a mental health visit that take place on the same day at a single location as a single visit for purposes of establishing the FQHC's or RHC's rate to apply for an adjustment to its per-visit rate, and after the department has approved that rate adjustment, to bill a medical visit and a mental health visit that take place on the same day at a single location as separate visits, in accordance with the bill. This bill would also include a licensed acupuncturist within those health professionals covered under the definition of a "visit." The bill would require the department, by July 1, 2022, to submit a state plan amendment to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reflect certain changes described in the bill, and to seek necessary federal approvals. The bill would also make conforming and technical changes.
Existing law requires the court to grant a fee waiver to an applicant at any stage of the proceedings at both the appellate and trial court levels if the applicant meets specified standards of eligibility and application requirements, including a person who is receiving certain public benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income or Medi-Cal, or who has a monthly income of 125% or less of the current poverty guidelines, as specified. An initial fee waiver excuses the applicant from paying, among other fees and costs, fees for the first pleading and other court fees and costs as specified in rules adopted by the Judicial Council. Existing law requires an applicant for a fee waiver to complete, under penalty of perjury, a Judicial Council application form containing specified information. This bill would additionally require a court to grant a fee waiver to an applicant who receives benefits under the California Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC Program) , or who receives unemployment compensation. The bill would eliminate the fee waiver for a person who has a monthly income of 125% or less of the current poverty guidelines, and instead would grant a fee waiver for an applicant who is a member of a low-income family, as defined, for the county that has the highest low-income limit in the state. The bill would require the Judicial Council to annually publish a table establishing the threshold monthly household income for this income-based fee waiver. By requiring an applicant who is requesting a fee waiver based on receiving WIC Program benefits or unemployment to complete, under penalty of perjury, a Judicial Council application form and a financial statement, this bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.